2 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

Great article. FTA: "The coercive restraint of human liberty is inherently evil. Control of ones person, property, and behavior should be the exclusive province of the sovereign man."FTA: "The only legitimate limitation of liberty is that which prevents transgression on the liberty of others, or which compensates those transgressed upon."Compensation for transgression is good, but it does not justify transgression.FTA: "Without a disinterested arbiter, maintaining a monopoly of legitimate force with which it resolves disputes and enforces compacts between men, the liberty of the weak will be abrogated by the will of the strong”"In a matter of speaking, yes. You have to settle for what the market can provide, even in justice, which is far superior to monopolized justice which is highly arbitrary and violent.FTA: "For example, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to kill someone who is planning to kill you, before they ever pick up a gun. To a strict non-aggressionist, this is unethical and morally wrong."This is the challenge. It helps that one be able to prove motive if their situation is considered before some voluntary dispute resolution service.FTA:"I also believe that you are responsible not just to yourself, but to your wife and children for example; and that they are responsible to you. I also believe that it is perfectly acceptable for you to make choices for your kids to protect them, until they are able to do so on their own.Again, the non-aggressionists think that is wrong."It's wrong if you state it as an ideologically valid position. I think that's an individual's choice, and your choice is that there is some shared responsibility in your family. You must have faith in the marketplace to be understanding. It usually is, but if you choose security over liberty, you will not have the opportunity to live in a voluntary society. Most people will understand if you act in behalf of your child.FTA: "I believe that without governments, at least as voluntary collectives; the strong will inevitably violate the rights of the weak; until the strong are too powerful to be resisted, at which point they will enforce tyranny."At least your ideology allows for striking first at those who would desire to suppress you. However most people don't think assassinating tyrants is worthwhile.FTA: "Non aggressionists believe that because no government can be perfect, according to their interpretation of the philosophical system of liberty; all government is therefore illegitimate and cannot be allowed to exist.Personally, I believe that strict non-aggressionism is a voluntary mental illness."Minarchy is not an ideal. Yet there is no perfect situation. 'Vigilance towards liberty in perpetuity' is consistent and functions for individuals even when they live in police states. All government is illegitimate if it does not obtain consent of the governed. In practical terms, I distinguish a difference between government (systemic control schemes) and governance (individual-based growth of accountability/responsibility).FTA: "Amazingly to me, at least on an emotional visceral level (I understand it to be true intellectually, and some of the reasoning behind it, I just think it’s absurd, or even obscene); is that this whole idea is uncomfortable, or frightening, or simply preposterous to many people."Exactly. Good ideology does not try to define the nature of the world in one breath while advocating a specific scheme of government in the other. This applies particularly to ideologies such as socialism, or the green party which argues the 'balance' of 'nature' is out of whack, therefore 'impose our system/choices on everyone else'. That is a sickness.

• Reply